Madras High Court
1359 cases · page 1 of 46
Showing 1–29V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
V-Guard Industries, proprietor of the well-known 'V-GUARD' mark with a Kangaroo device, applied for registration of the label mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16 (Application No. 3254001). Kangaro Industries opposed the application but failed to file evidence in support of opposition within the prescribed time under Rule 45(1) of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, instead seeking an extension under Section 131 read with Rule 109. The Assistant Registrar rejected the extension and held the opposition deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2). The single judge reversed this order, but the Division Bench set aside the single judge's order, holding that Rule 45 prescribes a specific time limit with express consequences for default, and Section 131/Rule 109 discretionary extension cannot override the mandatory provisions of Rule 45.
M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries
MRF Limited, a well-known manufacturer of tyres and automotive products, filed suit against Mr. Aas Mohammed, who was operating under the trade name 'MRF Batteries' in New Delhi. MRF sought interim injunctions on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement of original artworks, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The Madras High Court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of MRF's registered trademarks across multiple classes (1, 9, 12, and 35), granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and ordered notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), sought an ad interim injunction against Orange Biotech and others who were using the mark 'ORG 9' for a similar pharmaceutical product. The Madras High Court found prima facie trademark infringement, noting that the alpha-numeric mark ORG-9 was deceptively similar to the registered mark ARG-9, and relied on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740-742 of 2025 where a similar mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. The court granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited
Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed a patent infringement suit against Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited alleging infringement of its Indian Patent No. IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The plaintiff sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from dealing in the allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at a project site in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The court extended the previously granted interim injunction until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks for further hearing.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
Linux Laboratories Private Limited v.Ms Univentis Medicare Limited And 3 others
Linux Laboratories Private Limited filed a suit against Ms Univentis Medicare Limited and others for trademark infringement of their registered trademark EPITRAZ. The parties settled the dispute among themselves and filed a Settlement Agreement, which was recorded by the court. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with no order as to costs.
Spalon India Private Limited v.Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon
The plaintiff, Spalon India Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon, for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'BOUNCE'. The parties reached a settlement and executed a memorandum of compromise, which was accepted by the court. The defendant agreed to a decree in terms of the remedies claimed by the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs. The parties also provided for payment of liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of breach.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd v.Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for trademark infringement and passing off by Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The court held that the trademarks 'Arogya' and 'Patanjali Aarogya' are not similar and that the respondents are protected under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that the goods marketed by the appellant and the respondents are different and that the respondents' trademark is prefixed with the word 'Patanjali'.
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd v.Assistant Registrar Of Trademarks And, K.R. Nagendra, K.N. Shobha
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd appealed against the registration of a trademark by Shankar Industries. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Shankar Industries was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that Shankar Industries had established use of the mark since 1995-1996 and that the appellant's use did not pre-date theirs. The court also noted that many of the appellant's registrations were limited to the state of West Bengal, while the respondents' registrations were limited to Karnataka.
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons v.M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)
The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v.The Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.
Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the rejection of an application (No. 5547423) by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it was deemed abandoned due to non-filing of a counter statement against opposition No. 1323716. The appellant argued they were never properly served with the notice of opposition, as proof of actual receipt via email was lacking. The Court held that without proof of actual receipt, the time limit for filing the counter statement does not run, and consequently, the application cannot be deemed abandoned.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal was filed against the Joint Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition. The respondent argued that the amended claims were already covered by the parent application and did not meet statutory requirements, citing prior art.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
E.R.Squibb & Sons LLC challenged the recommendation made by the Opposition Board regarding Patent No. IN340060, arguing that the board failed to consider crucial evidence submitted by the patentee during post-grant opposition proceedings initiated by Zydus Healthcare Limited. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the recommendation is only a suggestion for the Patent Authority, the petitioner could raise these objections during the final decision-making process or appeal.
Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi v.Maya Appliances Private Limited
This Madras High Court judgment addresses the maintainability of a patent revocation application filed by Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi against Maya Appliances Private Limited. The core issue was whether the petitioner could file this separate revocation petition when they had already contested the validity of Indian Patent No. 351954 as a counter-claim in an infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. The court held that once a defense is exercised in one forum, it cannot be re-agitated in another.
Dr.Vishwanath Padmanabhan v.The Joint Controller of Patents & Designs, Head of Office, Patent Office Chennai
Dr. Vishwanath Padmanabhan challenged the Patent Office's decision to deem his invention application withdrawn under Section 11B(4) due to a technical uploading error in the e-filing portal. The court found that since the petitioner intended to proceed and had paid all requisite fees, the rejection was unjust.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks, Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs, Union Of India
The petitioner filed an Indian patent application related to satellite conjunction prediction. The deadline for filing the request for examination lapsed because the Indian Patent Agent mistakenly calculated the deadline, leading to a rejection by the Patent Office. The court allowed the petition, finding that there was no intent to abandon the application.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks
The writ petition was filed seeking direction to accept and process an Indian Patent Application (IN202447028876) after the statutory deadline for filing a request for examination lapsed. The lapse occurred due to an inadvertent calculation error by the petitioner's Indian patent agent, who mistakenly used the second priority date instead of the first.
Kannan Gopalakrishnan v.Controller of Patents
Kannan Gopalakrishnan challenged the proceedings of the Controller of Patents, arguing that his patent application for 'Solar Supplemental Power Source' was rejected and subsequently his review petition was dismissed without giving him a fair hearing opportunity. The petitioner sought to demonstrate the working prototype before the Patent Office.
Gibraltar (Uk) Limited v.The Registrar Of Trade Marks
Gibraltar (Uk) Limited appealed the rejection of its trademark application for 'PROMAX' under Class 31, arguing that it was a prior user and should be accepted despite objections based on similarity to existing marks. The Madras High Court upheld the Registrar's decision, finding that the appellant’s mark was deceptively similar to cited marks already registered in the same class. The court emphasized that registering the single word 'PROMAX' would create an undue monopoly over a common formative mark.
Dasaprakash Restaurant And Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd. v.The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Dasaprakash Restaurant and Ice Cream Parlour Pvt.Ltd., which sought to record its rights as a subsequent proprietor of the 'Dasaprakash' trademark. The court upheld the Trademark Registry's rejection, ruling that the transfer agreement was void ab initio because it was executed while the original proprietor, Balakrishna Rao, was legally incompetent due to insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, the court emphasized that since the mark was a family mark jointly owned by legal heirs, no single proprietor could unilaterally transfer rights.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging a previous order by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs rejecting the grant of patent for Application No.10810/CHENP/2012. The High Court examined whether the Original Side Appeal was maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, considering the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the original matter involved a rejection of patent grant under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since an appeal mechanism already existed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Italfarmaco Spa v.Deputy Controller of Patents & designs
Italfarmaco Spa filed an appeal challenging the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Madras. The core issue was whether this Original Side Appeal (OSA) was maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, given that the underlying matter involved a decision made under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The court held that since the Commercial Courts Act is a special enactment and provides specific appeal mechanisms, the intra-Court Appeal under Clause 15 was not maintainable.
Titan Company Limited v.The Controller of Patents & Designs
Titan Company Limited appealed the rejection of its patent application for 'A Jewellery Assembly' by the Controller of Patents & Designs. The Controller rejected the application, stating that the claims fell under Section 3(l) and were suitable for design registration rather than a patent. The High Court set aside the impugned order, finding that the respondent failed to consider the appellant's technical submissions.
P.G.Purushan (A) P.G Purushan v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by P.G. Purushan against the Trademark Registry's decision to reject their trademark application, 'STIMULAID.' The core issue was whether the applicant had abandoned the mark after failing to comply with initial examination report directions. The Court found that since the appellant had submitted Form TM-M and attended subsequent hearings, there was no evidence of abandonment. Consequently, the rejection order was set aside, compelling the Registrar to proceed with considering and potentially accepting the application.
Stove Kraft Limited v.The Registry of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Stove Kraft Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register the mark 'Pigeon'. The court found that the appellant had presented prima facie evidence of prior consent terms with Pigeon Corporation, which warranted further consideration rather than outright rejection. Consequently, the registry was directed to accept and advertise the trademark application, allowing any objections from third parties to be addressed later on their merits.
Ms Sapco Laboratories Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks & Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited
The Madras High Court heard an appeal challenging the refusal by the Trademark Registry to grant registration for 'BREMONT-L' due to opposition from Glenmark Pharmaceuticals ('GLEMONT'). The court acknowledged the appellant's arguments regarding common industry usage (e.g., the suffix 'MONT') but refrained from making a final decision on the merits of similarity. Instead, the High Court set aside the Registry's order and remitted the matter back for fresh examination, allowing the appellant to submit additional evidence while ensuring the opponent gets a chance to respond.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.